Ad description
A TV ad and website for Procter & Gamble’s Olay products Regenerist Whip and Total Effects 7 in 1:
a. The TV ad, seen 14 August 2019, included a voice-over which stated, “Sun care is self-care. But wait, can it be lightweight? Meet Olay SPF 30. Powerful sun care in powerful skin care. Enjoy the light as air feel of Regenerist Whip with SPF 30. Or indulge your skin with our moisturising Total Effects 7 in 1, with SPF 30. Be out and about enjoying the sun. Olay SPF 30 has you covered. Available at Boots”. At various points throughout the ad, images of the Olay Regenerist Whip and Olay 7 in 1 products were seen, with each presented with the text “SPF 30” written on them. On-screen text also stated “powerful SUN CARE SKIN CARE”, “with SPF 30”.
b. The website www.olay.co.uk, seen August 2019, showed the products Olay Regenerist SPF 30 Whip Face Moisturiser and Olay Total Effects SPF 30, 7in1 Anti-Ageing Moisturiser, 50 ml under the “PRODUCTS FOR SUN PROTECTION” product category.
In a product description section for the former product, text stated “It also delivers broad spectrum SPF30 UVA/UVB protection with SolaSheer Technology”. Under the heading “BENEFITS YOUR SKIN WILL LOVE”, was the sub-heading “SUN PROTECTION” below which text stated “Premature skin ageing is 80% caused by the sun, so protecting your skin from harmful rays is a must. This whipped wonder has SPF 30 to give efficient protection without feeling heavy”. In a product description section for the latter product, text stated “Olay Total Effects SPF 30 Anti-Ageing moisturiser is our strongest SPF protection within the Total Effects range” and “It delivers a high level of UVA/UVB protection with Broad Spectrum SPF 30 in a surprisingly fast-absorbing and non-greasy facial moisturiser”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ads were misleading because they implied the products offered the same level of sun protection as sunscreen.Response
Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd (P&G) said that in the skin care industry there were two metrics for protection from ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The level of protection against UVB radiation was indicated by the sun protection factor (SPF), and an indication that a product protected against UVA radiation was shown as the letters ‘UVA’ inside a circle, which indicated that it met the relevant EU standard.
P&G said that each of those metrics was determined by standard International Organisation for Standardisation test methods. They said that a product with an SPF of 30 protected against 97% of UVB rays and that the NHS advised that, when buying sunscreen, the product should have an SPF of at least 30 to protect against UVB and at least a 4-star UVA protection.
P&G said both products provided that level of protection. They believed it was clear from the ads and the associated claims that the products were skincare moisturisers and creams which provided SPF 30 which therefore acted as powerful sunscreens, not as an absolute sunblock. P&G said that a ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ sunscreen underwent the same testing to ascertain the level of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) they provided and they therefore believed any set of products tested to the same requirements could be directly compared on the basis of their UVR protection. P&G therefore said the products featured in the ad offered the same level of sun protection as sunscreen and that they could also be used as a lightweight substitute to sunscreen (in the context of daily, cosmetic usage), based on testing mandated by regulation and the industry itself.
P&G believed the advertised products would not be confused with ‘primary’ sunscreens and used for activities they were not designed for, e.g. sunbathing, recreational or sports activities, for which the products lacked the necessary technology to withstand immersion, sand or towelling, etc. P&G said that was firstly because Olay represented a cosmetic facial skin-care brand, and the products would be recognised as such by consumers, rather than as whole-body, primary sunscreens. Secondly, P&G said Olay had never marketed a range of ‘primary’ sunscreens. Thirdly, P&G believed the ads were clear in providing a cosmetic context for the “sun care” claims made.
P&G said that the British Skin Foundation confirmed that no sunscreen could provide absolute protection and that they recommended sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or more should be applied to the skin. P&G believed consumers were very familiar with the range of SPFs available. In relation to the TV ad, Clearcast did not believe it implied that the product was a replacement for, nor a superior product to, sunscreens. They said that the voice-over claim “Powerful sun care in powerful skin care” used the word “powerful” in relation to the range of skin care products, rather than to mean that it should be used as a stand-alone sunscreen. Clearcast said P&G confirmed that SPF 30 was the highest level of sun protection offered within the Olay Range, which, they said, allowed the consumer up to 30 times longer in the sun compared to not wearing any sun protection.
Clearcast also believed that the statements “Be out and about enjoying the sun” and “Olay SPF30 has you covered” referred to the SPF benefits of the skin care products (i.e. a popular moisturiser that also offered sun protection) and did not compare their products to sunscreens. They therefore believed that the claims and statements were fair and reasonable descriptions of the SPF enhanced moisturisers within the Olay range, rather than sold as an alternative to sun protection products.
Assessment
Not upheld
The TV ad, ad (a), began with a voice-over which stated, “Sun care is self-care. But wait, can it be lightweight? Meet Olay SPF 30. Powerful sun care in powerful skin care” and went on to state “Be out and about enjoying the sun. Olay SPF 30 has you covered”. The ad also contained repeated references to both products’ SPF 30 level of sun protection, both in the spoken voice-over and in on-screen text.
The ASA considered viewers would recognise both products were daily moisturisers and, given the TV ad’s sustained references to sun care, they would understand that both products also functioned to provide the same level of sun protection as sunscreen.
On the Olay website in ad (b), both products were featured in the “Moisturisers” category and in the “Products for sun protection” sub-category. Both individual product pages also included references to sun protection. The product page for the Olay Regenerist SPF 30 Whip Face Moisturiser stated, “It also delivers broad spectrum SPF30 UVA/UVB protection” and “Premature skin ageing is 80% caused by the sun, so protecting your skin from harmful rays is a must. This whipped wonder has SPF 30 to give efficient protection without feeling heavy”. On the product page for the Olay Total Effects SPF 30 7in1 Anti-Ageing Moisturiser, text stated that the product “is our strongest SPF protection within the Total Effects range” and that “It delivers a high level of UVA/UVB protection with Broad Spectrum SPF 30”. In that context we considered the overall effect of the references to sun protection were such that consumers would also understand from ad (b) that the products offered the same level of sun protection as sunscreen.
Whilst consumers would understand from the ads that the products provided the same level of sun protection as a sunscreen, in addition to their other cosmetic properties, we considered they were likely to differentiate the products from regular sunscreen and would understand they were not direct substitutes in terms of the activities for which they should be used. In particular, they were unlikely to be misled into thinking that the products were a substitute for the use of dedicated sunscreen when undertaking activities such as exercising, swimming or similar.
We also considered that consumers were likely to be aware that sunscreen had to be applied as directed to be effective, and that it needed to be reapplied regularly to maintain sun protection. We understood the products underwent the same testing as a primary sunscreen in order to be rated on the level of UVA and UVB protection they provided. We therefore understood that they were capable of supporting claims that they provided the same level of sun protection to an equivalent sunscreen. Because we understood the products featured in the ads met the same standards of sun protection as primary sunscreen, but that consumers would understand the product was not suitable for certain activities or all-day sun exposure, but rather as a daily sunscreen, we concluded the ads were unlikely to mislead.
We investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation),
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification) and
3.12
3.12
Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.
(Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
We investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
For advertisements that quote prices for an advertised product or service, material information [for the purposes of rule
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
includes:
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Advertisements must not falsely imply that the advertiser is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession. Advertisements must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context.
(Substantiation)
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Qualification) and
3.11
3.11
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
BCAP has published guidance on superimposed text to help television broadcasters ensure compliance with rule
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
. The guidance is available at:
Use of superimposed text in television advertising
(Exaggeration), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
BCAP Code
3.1 3.10 3.12 3.2 3.9 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.11 3.9
